Thursday, September 07, 2017

John Tamny makes
an interesting connection regarding Trump's pro-manufacturing brand of
economic meddling. First summarizing observations about the economic
stagnation of Russia and Afghanistan, where visits spaced decades
apart yield remarkably similar views of their inhabitants' working
days, Tamny considers what those observations mean:

So
while it's popular to say that the disappearance of some forms of work
tells the story of a formerly glorious city, state, or country's
demise, the paradoxical truth is that the non-departure of specific
work is the bigger signal of looming demise. Investors are the
creators of all jobs, and they want dynamism. Locales defined by
static working conditions are the opposite of dynamic, and as such
they're an investor repellent. New York City thrives by virtue of it
having shed its manufacturing past, while Flint languishes for it
having not shed manufacturing work quickly
enough.

Investors want change, simply because profits are,
like luxury, an historical concept. Just as entrepreneurs
commoditize luxuries every day to our benefit, so do they aggressively
compete away profits. This explains why the nature of work is
constantly changing. It simply must. Where it doesn't is where
opportunity is slight mainly because investment is. [bold
added]

True, at one point, the mere presence of factories
was an indicator of economic strength and progress but, for reasons
Tamny elaborates on, they aren't, any more. And measures, such as
jacking up prices via tariffs to make manufacturing things here again
seem attractive, would just as surely squander American talent and wealth as
"employing" armies of ditch-diggers after banning heavy construction
equipment. The change investors want is increased
efficiency. Factories filled with human beings who have to be paid
more than others (or robots) are today's ditch-diggers. They might do
a job, but there are better ways of doing it. One can see either doing
work with his eyes, but one must hold the context in which such work
is valuable (because it is the most efficient alternative) with one's
mind. To embrace manufacturing as a panacea for the former reason is foolish; to do so in a given case for
the latter, is wise.

It is a shame that politicians have
enough power to saddle us, even partly, with their own
foolishness.Trump's economic ideas -- like those of Bernie Sanders and Nicolás Maduro -- were discredited decades ago. Were the state and economics separated, discussion of them would be the academic exercises they should be, and nowhere near the realm of implementation.